- Status
cyber_jockey
Distinguished
- Jul 6, 2008
- 397
- 0
- 18,780
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]take a look at most games that are ported to the pc, even when done well, they require more power to play than the equivalent on a console. what im afraid of is all the ports that come to the pc will no longer be working great with 1gpu, take a look at gothem city imposters, and all the problems that has, at least from what i read. dont think of a console as a computer, where 2 gpus will benefit the computer, think of it as 2 gpus that will get programmed for exclusively, and while on the console the engines will run fine, but on the pc, the engines will run poorly. you have to think of most companies as money hungry, and not developers who care, because even if they care, they need money, and the people with it do not care.[/citation]
More power? Sure, but it's not by too much unless the game is very inefficient. For example, Skyrim's extreme CPU reliance was horrible until that got patched. At that time, it needed far more CPU power than even the Cell processor had for whatever reason. However, it was patched and fixed. None of the other games that we talk about often have that problem anymore. As for the graphics, please remember that the consoles are actually rendering in only 720p and then up-scaling it to 1080p, not rendering in 1080p.
The consoles also don't have the quality settings maxed out like the PCs are capable of, so even 720p with maxed out settings is already well beyond the capabilities of the consoles. Really, the increased performance necessary on the PC isn't very much. For example, even a card like the 6670 can play most of the console ports at console quality 720p and you can have the image up-scaled to 1080p like in a console too.
The reason that it takes so much more performance than the consoles have to hit 1080p with high settings and beyond is simple, the console doesn't go that high graphically. At that point, you are far beyond the console's performance and picture quality. Even a Radeon 6770 can do well beyond a console's picture quality.
So, maybe newer console ports will have a little more trouble (I highly doubt it), but maybe not. Do remember that even if they're not programmed for the specific amount of GPUs in our systems, that it doesn't matter too much. How many console ports are programmed for more than the single GPU in the Xbox 360/PS3, yet support SLI and CF in a PC?
[citation][nom]daglesj[/nom]Guys you are forgetting one great feature if it has two GPUs in it.Two HDMI ports...dual monitors for better two/four player experience.[/citation]
... Or, they could put two HDMI ports on a single GPU. Really, two HDMI ports should have nothing to do with two GPUs. Even Nvidia's single GPU Fermi cards can have two outputs at once. The GTX 680 is supposed to have four simultaneous outputs (to beat Eyefinity's max of three per GPU). Having two GPUs doesn't really have much of anything to do with having two HDMI ports.
More power? Sure, but it's not by too much unless the game is very inefficient. For example, Skyrim's extreme CPU reliance was horrible until that got patched. At that time, it needed far more CPU power than even the Cell processor had for whatever reason. However, it was patched and fixed. None of the other games that we talk about often have that problem anymore. As for the graphics, please remember that the consoles are actually rendering in only 720p and then up-scaling it to 1080p, not rendering in 1080p.
The consoles also don't have the quality settings maxed out like the PCs are capable of, so even 720p with maxed out settings is already well beyond the capabilities of the consoles. Really, the increased performance necessary on the PC isn't very much. For example, even a card like the 6670 can play most of the console ports at console quality 720p and you can have the image up-scaled to 1080p like in a console too.
The reason that it takes so much more performance than the consoles have to hit 1080p with high settings and beyond is simple, the console doesn't go that high graphically. At that point, you are far beyond the console's performance and picture quality. Even a Radeon 6770 can do well beyond a console's picture quality.
So, maybe newer console ports will have a little more trouble (I highly doubt it), but maybe not. Do remember that even if they're not programmed for the specific amount of GPUs in our systems, that it doesn't matter too much. How many console ports are programmed for more than the single GPU in the Xbox 360/PS3, yet support SLI and CF in a PC?
[citation][nom]daglesj[/nom]Guys you are forgetting one great feature if it has two GPUs in it.Two HDMI ports...dual monitors for better two/four player experience.[/citation]
... Or, they could put two HDMI ports on a single GPU. Really, two HDMI ports should have nothing to do with two GPUs. Even Nvidia's single GPU Fermi cards can have two outputs at once. The GTX 680 is supposed to have four simultaneous outputs (to beat Eyefinity's max of three per GPU). Having two GPUs doesn't really have much of anything to do with having two HDMI ports.
daglesj
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2007
- 485
- 21
- 18,785
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]... Or, they could put two HDMI ports on a single GPU. Really, two HDMI ports should have nothing to do with two GPUs. Even Nvidia's single GPU Fermi cards can have two outputs at once. The GTX 680 is supposed to have four simultaneous outputs (to beat Eyefinity's max of three per GPU). Having two GPUs doesn't really have much of anything to do with having two HDMI ports.[/citation]
Yeah but you arent going to get a 680+ spec GPU in a console. So probably two midrange (say 6770) chips that MS can get for $15 each (a 6970 chip would cost a lot more per box) from AMD is going to be the best we get. Wouldnt hurt to be able to have a GPU each for two screen output if required. A 6770 would struggle running two screens I reckon.
Sony and MS have to be more cost concious this time around. The economy probably isnt sweet to $400+ consoles this time around and the shareholders are not going to want the loss ratio on each console to be as high as it was for the current gen.
But who knows. This is probably another BS rumour again. Still it creates clicks and ad revenue I guess.
Yeah but you arent going to get a 680+ spec GPU in a console. So probably two midrange (say 6770) chips that MS can get for $15 each (a 6970 chip would cost a lot more per box) from AMD is going to be the best we get. Wouldnt hurt to be able to have a GPU each for two screen output if required. A 6770 would struggle running two screens I reckon.
Sony and MS have to be more cost concious this time around. The economy probably isnt sweet to $400+ consoles this time around and the shareholders are not going to want the loss ratio on each console to be as high as it was for the current gen.
But who knows. This is probably another BS rumour again. Still it creates clicks and ad revenue I guess.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]daglesj[/nom]Yeah but you arent going to get a 680+ spec GPU in a console. So probably two midrange (say 6770) chips that MS can get for $15 each (a 6970 chip would cost a lot more per box) from AMD is going to be the best we get. Wouldnt hurt to be able to have a GPU each for two screen output if required. A 6770 would struggle running two screens I reckon.Sony and MS have to be more cost concious this time around. The economy probably isnt sweet to $400+ consoles this time around and the shareholders are not going to want the loss ratio on each console to be as high as it was for the current gen.But who knows. This is probably another BS rumour again. Still it creates clicks and ad revenue I guess.[/citation]
Since the 680 supports quad displays, lower end Kepler cards probably will too. All of AMD's Radeon 5000, 6000, 7000, and probably newer families yet to come support three (or more for later generations) displays even down to the 5450, 6450, and 7350. All of Nvidia's current low end cards support two displays per card as well.
The 6770 wouldn't struggle with two or three screens unless you were gaming (or something similarly graphics intensive) on them. The point I was making is that the amount of GPUs and display outputs don't need to be identical. A single GPU could have as many display outputs as connected to it. That there are (well, might be) two GPUs in the next Xbox would not have any correlation with there being one, two, or any other amount of display outputs. If MS wanted to, they could have one GPU and four outputs or four GPUs with only one output. There is not a correlation between the GPU count and the HDMI port count in this context.
Since the 680 supports quad displays, lower end Kepler cards probably will too. All of AMD's Radeon 5000, 6000, 7000, and probably newer families yet to come support three (or more for later generations) displays even down to the 5450, 6450, and 7350. All of Nvidia's current low end cards support two displays per card as well.
The 6770 wouldn't struggle with two or three screens unless you were gaming (or something similarly graphics intensive) on them. The point I was making is that the amount of GPUs and display outputs don't need to be identical. A single GPU could have as many display outputs as connected to it. That there are (well, might be) two GPUs in the next Xbox would not have any correlation with there being one, two, or any other amount of display outputs. If MS wanted to, they could have one GPU and four outputs or four GPUs with only one output. There is not a correlation between the GPU count and the HDMI port count in this context.
daglesj
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2007
- 485
- 21
- 18,785
Thats okay I get where you are coming from I was just going by the fact that we hadn't yet had a console that could support two screens for better in room multiplayer. Having two GPUs would make that work a lot better as chances are its going to be two lesser GPUs than one mega top of the line GPU (or two) and a single 6770 type GPU wouldn't really cut it for high quality dual display gaming.
Anyway could all be a load of baloney......
Anyway could all be a load of baloney......
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]More power? Sure, but it's not by too much unless the game is very inefficient. For example, Skyrim's extreme CPU reliance was horrible until that got patched. At that time, it needed far more CPU power than even the Cell processor had for whatever reason. However, it was patched and fixed. None of the other games that we talk about often have that problem anymore. As for the graphics, please remember that the consoles are actually rendering in only 720p and then up-scaling it to 1080p, not rendering in 1080p.The consoles also don't have the quality settings maxed out like the PCs are capable of, so even 720p with maxed out settings is already well beyond the capabilities of the consoles. Really, the increased performance necessary on the PC isn't very much. For example, even a card like the 6670 can play most of the console ports at console quality 720p and you can have the image up-scaled to 1080p like in a console too.The reason that it takes so much more performance than the consoles have to hit 1080p with high settings and beyond is simple, the console doesn't go that high graphically. At that point, you are far beyond the console's performance and picture quality. Even a Radeon 6770 can do well beyond a console's picture quality.So, maybe newer console ports will have a little more trouble (I highly doubt it), but maybe not. Do remember that even if they're not programmed for the specific amount of GPUs in our systems, that it doesn't matter too much. How many console ports are programmed for more than the single GPU in the Xbox 360/PS3, yet support SLI and CF in a PC?... Or, they could put two HDMI ports on a single GPU. Really, two HDMI ports should have nothing to do with two GPUs. Even Nvidia's single GPU Fermi cards can have two outputs at once. The GTX 680 is supposed to have four simultaneous outputs (to beat Eyefinity's max of three per GPU). Having two GPUs doesn't really have much of anything to do with having two HDMI ports.[/citation]
actually many console games render at under 720p, and i do keep that in mind for what i say.
with allot of what you say, i can agree, than i look at a high profile game like gta4...
i also look at the excuse of we raised game prices because we need to... and relate that to increased graphic quality, and just shutter to think what may come next generation, especially if the quality is anywhere near todays high end.
i mean take a look at minimum requirements for many console to pc games, some of them are requiring gpus that are several generations further along than what is in the console. i mean its not bothering us now, because we all have 4XXX+ gpus if we play games now, but look at the next console generation requiring sli to play a game, or not playing a game well till 2 or 3 gpu generations later, because you have to know they dont optimize an engine unless they have to.
actually many console games render at under 720p, and i do keep that in mind for what i say.
with allot of what you say, i can agree, than i look at a high profile game like gta4...
i also look at the excuse of we raised game prices because we need to... and relate that to increased graphic quality, and just shutter to think what may come next generation, especially if the quality is anywhere near todays high end.
i mean take a look at minimum requirements for many console to pc games, some of them are requiring gpus that are several generations further along than what is in the console. i mean its not bothering us now, because we all have 4XXX+ gpus if we play games now, but look at the next console generation requiring sli to play a game, or not playing a game well till 2 or 3 gpu generations later, because you have to know they dont optimize an engine unless they have to.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]if MS look in longer way down the road, they would use Radeon 7770 chip, thats as far I can think for for cost factor. It is unlikely they will use two 7870 chips. (1 7870 may be, but two? looks like going to be 7770)[/citation]
A single 7770 is not enough performance for even maxed out 1080p in current PC titles. 1 7870 is, but it's going overboard and the 7850 would be a better choice for as a single GPU option. Two 7750 or 7770 GPUs (or similarly performing, or with similar total aggregate performance if the two GPUs are asynchronous) would be necessary for just 1080p with proper picture quality fro a dual GPU system.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]actually many console games render at under 720p, and i do keep that in mind for what i say.with allot of what you say, i can agree, than i look at a high profile game like gta4...i also look at the excuse of we raised game prices because we need to... and relate that to increased graphic quality, and just shutter to think what may come next generation, especially if the quality is anywhere near todays high end. i mean take a look at minimum requirements for many console to pc games, some of them are requiring gpus that are several generations further along than what is in the console. i mean its not bothering us now, because we all have 4XXX+ gpus if we play games now, but look at the next console generation requiring sli to play a game, or not playing a game well till 2 or 3 gpu generations later, because you have to know they dont optimize an engine unless they have to.[/citation]
To be fair, optimizing the engine would need to be relative to each and every graphics card that they want to support and that's not something that I find likely to ever happen. Basically, doing that would require having an engine for every video card or almost every video card (if the 6950 1GB is optimized for, then it will run equally well on the 6950 2GB and probably the 6970 too, so it probably wouldn't need to be optimized for every individual card, but for a very wide variety nonetheless).
Basically, there would need to be a differently optimized version of the game engine for Radeon 6800, 6900, 5750/5770/6750/6770 (they're the same; the only difference is that 6700 has proper Blu-Ray support), 5800/5970, 4850/4850X2, 4870/4890/4870X2, GTX 550 TI, GTX 560/560 TI, GTX 570, GTX 580/590, GTX 460 768MB/(192 bit) 1GB, GTX 460 (256 bit) 1GB, GTX 465/470, GTX 480, and so on with the newer (28nm) cards too.
Perhaps there can be a compromise that could use all (or most) of the current cards to greater effect, but there may only be so much that can be done, especially with graphics cards that aren't even similar to the console's graphics system. Basically, the console ports might favor the AMD cards if they are optimized more than current console ports are.
A single 7770 is not enough performance for even maxed out 1080p in current PC titles. 1 7870 is, but it's going overboard and the 7850 would be a better choice for as a single GPU option. Two 7750 or 7770 GPUs (or similarly performing, or with similar total aggregate performance if the two GPUs are asynchronous) would be necessary for just 1080p with proper picture quality fro a dual GPU system.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]actually many console games render at under 720p, and i do keep that in mind for what i say.with allot of what you say, i can agree, than i look at a high profile game like gta4...i also look at the excuse of we raised game prices because we need to... and relate that to increased graphic quality, and just shutter to think what may come next generation, especially if the quality is anywhere near todays high end. i mean take a look at minimum requirements for many console to pc games, some of them are requiring gpus that are several generations further along than what is in the console. i mean its not bothering us now, because we all have 4XXX+ gpus if we play games now, but look at the next console generation requiring sli to play a game, or not playing a game well till 2 or 3 gpu generations later, because you have to know they dont optimize an engine unless they have to.[/citation]
To be fair, optimizing the engine would need to be relative to each and every graphics card that they want to support and that's not something that I find likely to ever happen. Basically, doing that would require having an engine for every video card or almost every video card (if the 6950 1GB is optimized for, then it will run equally well on the 6950 2GB and probably the 6970 too, so it probably wouldn't need to be optimized for every individual card, but for a very wide variety nonetheless).
Basically, there would need to be a differently optimized version of the game engine for Radeon 6800, 6900, 5750/5770/6750/6770 (they're the same; the only difference is that 6700 has proper Blu-Ray support), 5800/5970, 4850/4850X2, 4870/4890/4870X2, GTX 550 TI, GTX 560/560 TI, GTX 570, GTX 580/590, GTX 460 768MB/(192 bit) 1GB, GTX 460 (256 bit) 1GB, GTX 465/470, GTX 480, and so on with the newer (28nm) cards too.
Perhaps there can be a compromise that could use all (or most) of the current cards to greater effect, but there may only be so much that can be done, especially with graphics cards that aren't even similar to the console's graphics system. Basically, the console ports might favor the AMD cards if they are optimized more than current console ports are.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,567
- 13
- 85,015
About dual GPU's:
There is simply NO advantage to have two identical GPU's. In fact, it would be HARDER to code for.
If there is ANY truth to a dual GPU setup then it would be something like this:
1) GPU#1 - efficient chip for non-gaming tasks, and
2) GPU#2 - gaming GPU
I could see something similar to NVidia's Optimus in laptops which has two graphics chips, the second being a gaming chip that can be turned off 100% when not needed.
KINECT processing:
Kinect will still only reach a small market so they can't waste too many resources on the XBox 720 towards supporting it. The most sense would be to use a core for processing Kinect in games and use that same core for a different task when NOT playing games. This too would make sense in an Optimus type architecture where part of the system is disabled when not needed.
Basic architecture:
It's pretty certain that everything is based around a single APU. I would guess about 2GB of common System/Video RAM.
The HD6670 is possible, however I find it likely that the GPU has been tweaked for the best balance of AA, Tessellation etc. Since it's a gaming platform I find it unlikely we'll see the GNC compute architecture from the HD7000 series.
Efficiency:
The console may be based on existing computer hardware but there are ways to optimize that can make games run MUCH better on this hardware than on a similar PC.
One example:
Anti-aliasing can easily consume 30% of the graphics processing. However here's how it SHOULD be done on a new console which can't be done as easy on a PC (since games aren't created ONLY for the newest graphics cards):
step #1: a very efficient Anti-Aliasing algorithm is applied at the second-to-last stage
step #2: the TEXT, icons etc that is NOT to be anti-aliased are done in parallel
step #3: the TEXT is then overlayed on top of the anti-aliased background.
So the above might use 5% of the resources to achieve the same quality as 30% on a similar PC. Again, the problem with the PC is that while these methods are known and WILL be implemented, games are created for the hardware that makes most of the market so it takes a long time for these great optimizations to creep in.
TESSELLATION:
The new APU will of course have tessellation. Simply put, it's about rendering the close-up stuff in higher detail and the far stuff in lower detail. When game engines really start to take advantage of tessellation we could see the same quality for as little as 25% of the current processing costs.
Summary:
- single GPU (at least for the gaming part)
- next-gen XBOX is going to be really awesome, with gaming engines taking advantage of tessellation, more efficient anti-aliasing and other optimizations.
There is simply NO advantage to have two identical GPU's. In fact, it would be HARDER to code for.
If there is ANY truth to a dual GPU setup then it would be something like this:
1) GPU#1 - efficient chip for non-gaming tasks, and
2) GPU#2 - gaming GPU
I could see something similar to NVidia's Optimus in laptops which has two graphics chips, the second being a gaming chip that can be turned off 100% when not needed.
KINECT processing:
Kinect will still only reach a small market so they can't waste too many resources on the XBox 720 towards supporting it. The most sense would be to use a core for processing Kinect in games and use that same core for a different task when NOT playing games. This too would make sense in an Optimus type architecture where part of the system is disabled when not needed.
Basic architecture:
It's pretty certain that everything is based around a single APU. I would guess about 2GB of common System/Video RAM.
The HD6670 is possible, however I find it likely that the GPU has been tweaked for the best balance of AA, Tessellation etc. Since it's a gaming platform I find it unlikely we'll see the GNC compute architecture from the HD7000 series.
Efficiency:
The console may be based on existing computer hardware but there are ways to optimize that can make games run MUCH better on this hardware than on a similar PC.
One example:
Anti-aliasing can easily consume 30% of the graphics processing. However here's how it SHOULD be done on a new console which can't be done as easy on a PC (since games aren't created ONLY for the newest graphics cards):
step #1: a very efficient Anti-Aliasing algorithm is applied at the second-to-last stage
step #2: the TEXT, icons etc that is NOT to be anti-aliased are done in parallel
step #3: the TEXT is then overlayed on top of the anti-aliased background.
So the above might use 5% of the resources to achieve the same quality as 30% on a similar PC. Again, the problem with the PC is that while these methods are known and WILL be implemented, games are created for the hardware that makes most of the market so it takes a long time for these great optimizations to creep in.
TESSELLATION:
The new APU will of course have tessellation. Simply put, it's about rendering the close-up stuff in higher detail and the far stuff in lower detail. When game engines really start to take advantage of tessellation we could see the same quality for as little as 25% of the current processing costs.
Summary:
- single GPU (at least for the gaming part)
- next-gen XBOX is going to be really awesome, with gaming engines taking advantage of tessellation, more efficient anti-aliasing and other optimizations.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]photonboy[/nom]About dual GPU's:There is simply NO advantage to have two identical GPU's. In fact, it would be HARDER to code for.If there is ANY truth to a dual GPU setup then it would be something like this:1) GPU#1 - efficient chip for non-gaming tasks, and2) GPU#2 - gaming GPUI could see something similar to NVidia's Optimus in laptops which has two graphics chips, the second being a gaming chip that can be turned off 100% when not needed.KINECT processing:Kinect will still only reach a small market so they can't waste too many resources on the XBox 720 towards supporting it. The most sense would be to use a core for processing Kinect in games and use that same core for a different task when NOT playing games. This too would make sense in an Optimus type architecture where part of the system is disabled when not needed.Basic architecture:It's pretty certain that everything is based around a single APU. I would guess about 2GB of common System/Video RAM.The HD6670 is possible, however I find it likely that the GPU has been tweaked for the best balance of AA, Tessellation etc. Since it's a gaming platform I find it unlikely we'll see the GNC compute architecture from the HD7000 series.Efficiency:The console may be based on existing computer hardware but there are ways to optimize that can make games run MUCH better on this hardware than on a similar PC. One example:Anti-aliasing can easily consume 30% of the graphics processing. However here's how it SHOULD be done on a new console which can't be done as easy on a PC (since games aren't created ONLY for the newest graphics cards):step #1: a very efficient Anti-Aliasing algorithm is applied at the second-to-last stagestep #2: the TEXT, icons etc that is NOT to be anti-aliased are done in parallelstep #3: the TEXT is then overlayed on top of the anti-aliased background.So the above might use 5% of the resources to achieve the same quality as 30% on a similar PC. Again, the problem with the PC is that while these methods are known and WILL be implemented, games are created for the hardware that makes most of the market so it takes a long time for these great optimizations to creep in.TESSELLATION:The new APU will of course have tessellation. Simply put, it's about rendering the close-up stuff in higher detail and the far stuff in lower detail. When game engines really start to take advantage of tessellation we could see the same quality for as little as 25% of the current processing costs.Summary:- single GPU (at least for the gaming part)- next-gen XBOX is going to be really awesome, with gaming engines taking advantage of tessellation, more efficient anti-aliasing and other optimizations.[/citation]
The 6670 is not NEARLY fast enough for a new 1080p console. That would hardly be an upgrade over the current consoles.
The 6670 is not NEARLY fast enough for a new 1080p console. That would hardly be an upgrade over the current consoles.
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]jonnyboyC[/nom]Why two gpus? really doesn't make sense to me, it's not like they're going to be a high end gpu. The only reason i could think it would be like this would be so they could clock down the cores so it would be more power efficient but then it becomes more expensive because they have to by two dies instead of one for each console[/citation]
its simple ... economy , GPU's are significantly cheaper to produce than CPU cores , and
two , GPU in the pc market have proven to be better at handling nearly ALL game related task, the cpu should really only be utilized for one thing and one thing only on a console and that is AI. if the cpu is doing any other work it's a waste of resources. because gpus , can handle rendering , transform and lightening and physics calculations and video encoding and decopressing, better than a cpu any way.
lastly gpu's while running hot , run significantly cooler than full blown cpu's do.
having two cpu's coupled with a lower end processor makes more since in a console than having a super cpu and and just one gpu. the two gpu's will easily handle ALL gaming and video task , and do so with less power usuage and less heat generation. while the cpu only handles the AI , meaning it doesn't have to be a souped up cpu to handle that it just has to be moderately fast and cool running.
a console doesn't have to handle the aplications that call for a high CPU like a computer does , a console at most just has to run games and video. heavy cpu's are only good for work apps something that you will never see on a console.
does that make more sense to you ?
p.S. i'm in school for game art design , so i totally understand the design choices here , consoles need more gpu power than they had last gen , and last gen had way to powerful of cpu's for the task they were being thrown. MS's GPU heavy approach is the RIGHT way to go.
its simple ... economy , GPU's are significantly cheaper to produce than CPU cores , and
two , GPU in the pc market have proven to be better at handling nearly ALL game related task, the cpu should really only be utilized for one thing and one thing only on a console and that is AI. if the cpu is doing any other work it's a waste of resources. because gpus , can handle rendering , transform and lightening and physics calculations and video encoding and decopressing, better than a cpu any way.
lastly gpu's while running hot , run significantly cooler than full blown cpu's do.
having two cpu's coupled with a lower end processor makes more since in a console than having a super cpu and and just one gpu. the two gpu's will easily handle ALL gaming and video task , and do so with less power usuage and less heat generation. while the cpu only handles the AI , meaning it doesn't have to be a souped up cpu to handle that it just has to be moderately fast and cool running.
a console doesn't have to handle the aplications that call for a high CPU like a computer does , a console at most just has to run games and video. heavy cpu's are only good for work apps something that you will never see on a console.
does that make more sense to you ?
p.S. i'm in school for game art design , so i totally understand the design choices here , consoles need more gpu power than they had last gen , and last gen had way to powerful of cpu's for the task they were being thrown. MS's GPU heavy approach is the RIGHT way to go.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]its simple ... economy , GPU's are significantly cheaper to produce than CPU cores , and two , GPU in the pc market have proven to be better at handling nearly ALL game related task, the cpu should really only be utilized for one thing and one thing only on a console and that is AI. if the cpu is doing any other work it's a waste of resources. because gpus , can handle rendering , transform and lightening and physics calculations and video encoding and decopressing, better than a cpu any way. lastly gpu's while running hot , run significantly cooler than full blown cpu's do. having two cpu's coupled with a lower end processor makes more since in a console than having a super cpu and and just one gpu. the two gpu's will easily handle ALL gaming and video task , and do so with less power usuage and less heat generation. while the cpu only handles the AI , meaning it doesn't have to be a souped up cpu to handle that it just has to be moderately fast and cool running. a console doesn't have to handle the aplications that call for a high CPU like a computer does , a console at most just has to run games and video. heavy cpu's are only good for work apps something that you will never see on a console. does that make more sense to you ? p.S. i'm in school for game art design , so i totally understand the design choices here , consoles need more gpu power than they had last gen , and last gen had way to powerful of cpu's for the task they were being thrown. MS's GPU heavy approach is the RIGHT way to go.[/citation]
Yeah, the PS3's Cell has a lot of CPU performance considering its graphics system. Not that I nor the many companies and organizations (such as the USA military) can complain considering it's then awesome performance for it's cost, especially considering the many very powerful super computers built from networked PS3s.
Yeah, the PS3's Cell has a lot of CPU performance considering its graphics system. Not that I nor the many companies and organizations (such as the USA military) can complain considering it's then awesome performance for it's cost, especially considering the many very powerful super computers built from networked PS3s.
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Yeah, the PS3's Cell has a lot of CPU performance considering its graphics system. Not that I nor the many companies and organizations (such as the USA military) can complain considering it's then awesome performance for it's cost, especially considering the many very powerful super computers built from networked PS3s.[/citation]
that's my point ,microsoft , and sony both threw money away designing thier consoles with (at the time ) powerful CPU's.
if the systems had been deisgned with two graphics sub systems , they could have gone with cheaper gpu's and cheaper cpu's and still pulled off the visuals they did .
that's my point ,microsoft , and sony both threw money away designing thier consoles with (at the time ) powerful CPU's.
if the systems had been deisgned with two graphics sub systems , they could have gone with cheaper gpu's and cheaper cpu's and still pulled off the visuals they did .
daglesj
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2007
- 485
- 21
- 18,785
Exactly but Sony got some interesting side benefits from the PS3 GPU being total crap in that developers had to work out how to do interesting stuff in software using the CPU rather than the GPU. Though that seems to only have been for the most committed.
I was wondering if it would go the other way and just have a mega CPU with a co-tessalation unit and let the developers do what they liked in software. This could work for Sony but as MS will be tied to wanting folks to use a subset of the DirectX API I didn't think they would want to do that.
I was wondering if it would go the other way and just have a mega CPU with a co-tessalation unit and let the developers do what they liked in software. This could work for Sony but as MS will be tied to wanting folks to use a subset of the DirectX API I didn't think they would want to do that.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,567
- 13
- 85,015
Two GPU's:
Hey. I studied computers and I began to think more about this concept. First, let me state two things:
#1 - The console design starts with the amount of POWER it can consume. Probably 180Watts.
#2 - In general, two GPU's makes no sense. Why add the complexity?
However, there is one option that might work.
As I said above, a very efficient way of anti-aliasing is to AA everything BUT the text, HUD etc because it gets blurry. So the solution is to design the hardware to have two separate pipelines.
Another separate issue in the computer is having the computer run efficiently when not gaming. One solution is to have an efficient GPU and turn off the main GPU when not gaming (like NVidia's Optimus). However, that's not going to make the best use of the TOTAL POWER (180Watts?).
So, I suggest that they may do this:
Have TWO graphics chips but NOT identical ones.
When NOT gaming they use the efficient chip only, however when they ARE gaming they could use this chip to process the text, HUD etc separate from the main GPU to overlay on top of the main GPU rendering after it's aliased.
So having this second, efficient chip allows to run the XBOX 720 efficiently when not gaming, allows a very efficient anti-aliasing method and still uses both chips when gaming so they make full use of the total POWER allowed.
Works for me...
Hey. I studied computers and I began to think more about this concept. First, let me state two things:
#1 - The console design starts with the amount of POWER it can consume. Probably 180Watts.
#2 - In general, two GPU's makes no sense. Why add the complexity?
However, there is one option that might work.
As I said above, a very efficient way of anti-aliasing is to AA everything BUT the text, HUD etc because it gets blurry. So the solution is to design the hardware to have two separate pipelines.
Another separate issue in the computer is having the computer run efficiently when not gaming. One solution is to have an efficient GPU and turn off the main GPU when not gaming (like NVidia's Optimus). However, that's not going to make the best use of the TOTAL POWER (180Watts?).
So, I suggest that they may do this:
Have TWO graphics chips but NOT identical ones.
When NOT gaming they use the efficient chip only, however when they ARE gaming they could use this chip to process the text, HUD etc separate from the main GPU to overlay on top of the main GPU rendering after it's aliased.
So having this second, efficient chip allows to run the XBOX 720 efficiently when not gaming, allows a very efficient anti-aliasing method and still uses both chips when gaming so they make full use of the total POWER allowed.
Works for me...
AznCracker
Distinguished
- Nov 29, 2011
- 143
- 0
- 18,680
lol always on internet. Can imagine how many people are gonna return their games thinking they don't work
hannibal
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2004
- 2,885
- 253
- 21,190
Dual GPU is guite viable with APU options. AMD trinity and 6650 is guite possible combination. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-6.html
But as it has been said the release of Xbox 720 is far away. More likely woul be some solution with trinity that has two GPU modules in one die, so custom made trinity APU. Maybe like those early multicore CPU:s where there were two separate CPU cores in one module...
It would not fly , but it would be faster than xbox360...
But as it has been said the release of Xbox 720 is far away. More likely woul be some solution with trinity that has two GPU modules in one die, so custom made trinity APU. Maybe like those early multicore CPU:s where there were two separate CPU cores in one module...
It would not fly , but it would be faster than xbox360...
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]hannibal[/nom]Dual GPU is guite viable with APU options. AMD trinity and 6650 is guite possible combination. http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 224-6.htmlBut as it has been said the release of Xbox 720 is far away. More likely woul be some solution with trinity that has two GPU modules in one die, so custom made trinity APU. Maybe like those early multicore CPU:s where there were two separate CPU cores in one module... It would not fly , but it would be faster than xbox360...[/citation]
Some early dual/quad core CPUs (such as Pentium D and Core 2 Quad) had two dies that communicated on the FSB, not some sort of modular configuration on a single die.
Some early dual/quad core CPUs (such as Pentium D and Core 2 Quad) had two dies that communicated on the FSB, not some sort of modular configuration on a single die.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 8
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram